.

Between 2006 and 2020, the world is expected to reach a peak in oil production where world demand for oil resources will be greater than the world's available oil supplies. Learn about oil and natural gas depletion and what that means for the global economy and our way of life in the United States.

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Sweden: Oil Independence Without Additional Nuclear Power

Sweden is not only talking the talk about oil independence, but walking the walk. Although Sweden is much smaller than the United States, I think it's important to point out where other countries are making strides, where the U.S. is lagging behind. The most powerful part of this article appears to be the various people and communities working together to reach a solution. I believe relying solely on Mr. Bush or our federal government to solve our oil dependence problems is a mistake. The solution must start with individuals and might be better addressed at local community levels within theU.S.

--------Sweden is to take the biggest energy step of any advanced western economy by trying to wean itself off oil completely within 15 years - without building a new generation of nuclear power stations.The attempt by the country of 9 million people to become the world’s first practically oil-free economy is being planned by a committee of industrialists, academics, farmers, car makers, civil servants and others, who will report to parliament in several months.The intention, the Swedish government said yesterday, is to replace all fossil fuels with renewables before climate change destroys economies and growing oil scarcity leads to huge new price rises.

“Our dependency on oil should be broken by 2020,“ said Mona Sahlin, minister of sustainable development. “There shall always be better alternatives to oil, which means no house should need oil for heating, and no driver should need to turn solely to gasoline.“

According to the energy committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, there is growing concern that global oil supplies are peaking and will shortly dwindle, and that a global economic recession could result from high oil prices, ww4report.com said.Ms Sahlin has described oil dependency as one of the greatest problems facing the world.

“A Sweden free of fossil fuels would give us enormous advantages, not least by reducing the impact from fluctuations in oil prices,“ she said. “The price of oil has tripled since 1996.“

A government official said:

“We want to be both mentally and technically prepared for a world without oil. The plan is a response to global climate change, rising petroleum prices and warnings by some experts that the world may soon be running out of oil.“

Sweden, which was badly hit by the oil price rises in the 1970s, now gets almost all its electricity from nuclear and hydroelectric power, and relies on fossil fuels mainly for transport. Almost all its heating has been converted in the past decade to schemes which distribute steam or hot water generated by geothermal energy or waste heat. A 1980 referendum decided that nuclear power should be phased out, but this has still not been finalized.The decision to abandon oil puts Sweden at the top of the world green league table. Iceland hopes by 2050 to power all its cars and boats with hydrogen made from electricity drawn from renewable resources, and Brazil intends to power 80% of its transport fleet with ethanol derived mainly from sugar cane within five years...

Sweden has a head start over most countries. In 2003, 26% of all the energy consumed came from renewable sources--the EU average is 6%. Only 32% of the energy came from oil--down from 77% in 1970.

The Swedish government is working with carmakers Saab and Volvo to develop cars and lorries that burn ethanol and other biofuels. Last year the Swedish energy agency said it planned to get the public sector to move out of oil. Its health and library services are being given grants to convert from oil use and homeowners are being encouraged with green taxes. The paper and pulp industries use bark to produce energy, and sawmills burn wood chips and sawdust to generate power.

Are Billion $ Oil Industry Giveaways Supporting Our Addiction?

I'm not sure how this act meshes with Bush's plan to kick the oil habit? Can someone please explain to me why billions are being given to an industry making billions, when billions could be invested in new technology or alternative energy sources or any other method to reduce our oil demand in the U.S.?

Government may waive near $7 bln in oil, gas royalties

The government may waive up to $7 billion in royalty payments from companies pumping oil and natural gas on federal territory in the next five years, the New York Times reported on Tuesday, citing administration officials and budget documents.

The royalty relief would amount to one of the biggest giveaways of oil and gas in U.S. history, even though the administration assumes oil prices will remain above $50 a barrel throughout that period, the Times report said.

The report cited estimates in the Interior Department's recent budget plan that would allow companies to pump about $65 billion in oil and natural gas without paying royalties.

Administration officials cited by the report said the benefit stems from regulations dating back to 1996, when energy prices were relatively low and lawmakers wanted to encourage exploration in higher cost areas such as the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

Much of the oil and gas from such leases is just beginning to be pumped due to the time required to explore deep waters and build large offshore platforms.

"We need to remember the primary reason that incentives are given," said Johnnie M. Burton, director of the federal Minerals Management Service, according to the report. "It's not to make more money, necessarily. It's to make more oil, more gas, because production of fuel for our nation is essential to our economy and essential to our people."

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

America's Oil Addiction

So no, I didn’t watch Bush’s State of the Union speech the other night. It’s a bit painful to watch Bush try to communicate his speechwriter’s ideas and thoughts to the American people. Painful AND embarrassing. So I caught the highlights, and one of the biggest highlights of course, was his assertion that America is addicted to oil. I wanted to jump up and scream, HEY, that’s what I’ve been saying/blogging all along! But before I could get too excited, I thought about WHO was saying that America was addicted to oil. While I thank Bush for raising a very important point that most average Americans overlook on a daily basis, I have more than a few problems with his message. His words of reducing our dependence on Middle East Oil ring hollow. Bush is a big Texas oil man. His daddy is an oil man. His family made and continue to make their money in the oil business. Many a oil company contributed to Bush’s election and re-election. The family has significant ties with the Saudi’s, who control the largest amount ultimately recoverable oil reserves in the world. The idea of Bush doing anything to significantly reduce our dependence on oil is more than unlikely, it’s more than highly improbable, it’s freaking ridiculous.

By focusing on the Middle East, Bush fails to mention to the American people that the other places where we get our oil from are countries that reflect political and civil instability and a growing resentment towards the United States and the Bush administration’s foreign policies. So, why would Bush be so concerned with getting off oil in the Middle East when we currently only import 15% of our oil from the Middle East? Could it be that he’s hinting in a very indirect way, that in the future, major oil reserves outside of the Middle East are expected to go into decline, and the U.S. will be forced to import our oil supplies from the only big game still left in town…Saudi Arabia? Is it possible that Mr. Bush was trying to use the Middle East as a cover, in an effort to bring up our vulnerabilities to Peak Oil occurring, without scaring Americans half to death and instigating an economic recession?

And Bush’s plan to beat the oil addiction with ethanol and new technology kind of gives you that warm fuzzy feeling about the strength and resilience of the American economy and our people, but it’s all a bunch of BS. In no time soon are we going to be able to grow enough crops or convert enough waste to be able to produce enough ethanol fuel to quench the demand of our transportation industry. The land/resource requirements for producing ethanol are enormous when you bump it up against our current demand for fuel. Airplanes are not going to start magically running on ethanol in five years. We have so many derivative uses of petroleum products – from wire insulation to buttons to contact lenses to plastic bottles to fertilizers and pesticicdes -- it is simply impossible for ethanol or any other substance known to man right now, to replace petroleum completely or even partially. You can’t get a plastic bottle from wind energy. You can’t make contact lenses from the sun’s beams. You can’t produce fertilizers from hydrogen fuel cells. Don’t believe the hype. We are not going to technologize our way out of this situation in an easy and worry-free manner. Forget the warm and fuzzy feeling…

I’m tired of politicians playing around with issues that can and will have a profound effect on the world, and more importantly my life and the lives of my friends and family. I’m tired of them bringing up issues in a superficial manner without explaining WHY our oil addiction is a danger to our nation. If people really analyzed his message (and I’m pretty sure most people didn’t), one might start to ask some important questions about the reality of our oil situation. How much oil is there in the world? How much does the Middle East own? How secure is the United States oil supply? How much oil does the US use? How much oil does the world use? Where does the U.S. get it’s oil from? Is there political instability in these countries? How would oil prices be affected by instability in these countries? What industries in the United States rely on a cheap and secure oil supply? Would these industries be able to survive if oil prices continued to increase? How would the US economy be affected if these industries didn’t survive? Would companies in these industries lay off many workers? Would the US economy be able to absorb this level of unemployment? In what other ways will our lives as individuals be affected by higher oil prices?

It’s sad that there are so many questions that should be asked of our President and our federal and local governments that are being glossed over. I suspect the President’s comments in his State of the Union speech have more to do with bolstering support for Republicans in the upcoming elections, trying to turn around his public approval rating percentages, increasing support for his war in the middle east, and stealing the thunder from critics in the Democratic party regarding his lack of a new energy plan, than his genuine concern over America’s oil addiction. I doubt that Bush will make any significant strides in putting his goal to reduce dependence on oil into action during the remaining 3 years of his presidency.